After months of back and forth, the Vancouver City Council is no longer considering implementing limits on the number of animals residents can own. A 5-2 vote Monday evening sealed the ordinance’s fate as the majority of the council voted against moving forward with a public hearing.
The discussion first began in November 2016 after concerned residents addressed the council about a neighbor who habitually kept too many animals in unfavorable conditions.
The most recent proposal would have restricted households from keeping a total of more than 10 animals. Dogs were limited to three, and cats, hens and rabbits were restricted at five per household.
“I feel the number is arbitrary in terms of the solution we’re trying to find to a problem in limiting the number of pets isn’t necessarily going to get at those bad actors,” said Councilor Alishia Topper. Topper has expressed reservations about the ordinance throughout the process. “I believe that our city code already addresses the majority of issues that would be occurring regardless of the number of animals you have.”
Bryan Snodgrass, principal planner in the city’s Community and Economic Development department, said the city estimates it gets between five and 10 complaints annually concerning the number of animals a resident owns. The county, he said, handles a hoarding case every year to two, and about four or five times a month it receives calls about the number of animals someone has.
“We shouldn’t make laws for five or six calls a year,” Topper added.
The council questioned what the new ordinance could do that the existing code does not.
Snodgrass said that city staff hoped the ordinance would provide a baseline standard rather than an objective standard to make it easier and more cost effective to enforce.
“The number to me is the subjective part,” Topper argued.
Ultimately, most of the council agreed. Only Councilor Ty Stober and Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle voted to approve the ordinance on first reading.
“I would like to be done with it, personally,” Stober said when McEnerny-Ogle asked what the council would like to do with the ordinance moving forward.
Councilor Bart Hansen said the council won’t be able to come to a consensus on the issue until more compelling information comes to light.
Staff were not directed to continue working on the ordinance.
